Enjoy the link to the Home Page for NASA's Constellation Program.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...ion/index.html

And....?? Its soon to be 'old news', or so I have heard anyways

Alex

What was that Alex?

I appreciate the link bebe. As well as your link to the Overview of NASA's Rocket History/NASA TV That one got past me.

Very glad you like those!!!

Do we need naysaying at every mention of Constellation? You don't constantly talk about the impending doom of a terminally ill person. It's a major downer.

So you concede CxP is "terminally ill". I don't see the point of creating a new topic for a single link (and a link to a home page nonetheless) and a topic on a program that's been going on for several years so any of this would be old news.

Or should I open a new topic with a link to the Large Hadron Collider homepage as well?

Maybe there could be made a sticky thread with some link categories in the first post + a short description, to avoid an overflow of threads with a general link. They're massively interesting links in their own, but there's little discussion thread to be added to them. If only because of the non-permanent nature of its contents.

This should be in the board feedback forum, now that I think about it...

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I don't think this is the appropriate thread for Areas/Contellation/Orion bashing.

This is a pro thread, not a contra thread.

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell

ISS is essentially a long duration manned spacecraft. What's needed for getting to Mars is a long duration spacecraft. Is it feesable that if you sent up fuel and engine "modules" you could "fly" ISS to Mars? You could have more than one lander attached as backup etc etc. Pretty self sufficient and better yet, already up there, hence most of the kg to orbit already done.

Interested in other's opinions???

You apparently fail to realize what people's objections are here. The point is this thread was not worthy of being even created just in order to post a single link. Netiquette suggests a link would be better placed in one of the already existing discussions (and there certainly are many around here) instead of cluttering the forums just to post a link to some homepage. It's not as if it's a remarkable find to locate a link to CxP homepage. The OP has done the same thing several times, including creating a topic to post a link to Ares I-X launch gallery, twice, even though such a link would obviously fit into ... wait for it... the Ares I-X launch thread.

BTW, if this is not a bashing thread, can I create a bashing thread where noone pro-CxP will be allowed to post then?

I share your frustration about Constellation bashing being introduced anytime it's mentioned but...
I don't think it's either. I think it's an informational rather than an editorial thread. Although; the OP doesn't present the intention of the thread.

I would like to see an informational thread though. I get tired of the constant bickering.

It's been discused (or buried) in threads elsewhere, but here's a few short issues:
- It's designed as an experiment platform. Much of the station will therefore be superfluous.
- It's very heavy and will demand an incredible amount of fuel for the acceleration required (and decelaration at Mars).
- It wasn't designed for any considerable amount of acceleration other than small orbit adjustments.

I believe the last person to try that kind of limitation was banned.
Hint: He was Italian.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

LOL. Exactly, setting up rules like no disagreement or no positive comments kind of defeats the whole point of a discussion thread, doesn't it? Which is why I made the remark above to illustrate the point. I certainly don't intend to start such a thread as there's absolutely no point to it.
Equally, what's the point of creating solely a cheerleading thread for CxP? What's the discussion value there?

Just for the record, I resent that any disagreement with PoR is being labeled as bashing, especially if it's argumented and not merely blowing hot air. And I certainly don't see where mugaliens saw CxP bashing in the very few posts in this thread. Seems more like a case of truth hurts by stating CxP in its current configuration has a very uncertain future. That is a fact, not bashing.

It is only designed for the LEO environment. It isn't self sufficient, it takes many logistics flights per year to sustain it.

I'd imagine any extended flight (beyond this SS) will have to have large vessel large for all the required cargo.

Now there is a cancellation of the MaxQ test of Abort system. A slow and painful death is what is happening to Ares (or so it appears)... I do not know if there will be a rescheduling of this test, but it is yet another 'setback' that had LOTS of lead-time to avoid, IMO. Sorry, Glom...'tis what it is.

See here ->http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2009037903.pdf

Just sayin'...

I really like this press release quote “Crew safety is of utmost importance in our vehicle design, so we have devoted considerable thought and effort into the development of this innovative launch abort system,” said Cleon Lacefield, Lockheed Martin vice president and Orion Program manager.

Yet the test is cancelled due to schedule conflicts??? Huh? I missed something somewhere, I guess.

Alex

A large cargo module, a large propulsion module, augmented power plant for the Martian orbit, enhanced shielding for transplanetary radiation protection, probably some structural reinforcement to handle the increased stresses of the higher powered burns and perhaps aerobraking, enhanced communications equipment...

Probably, it would be better just to build a new spacecraft for the job.

Undoubtedly, that large vessel will be assembled in space, kinda like the ISS.

Happy Day.

*VERY* doubtful. Structures such as ISS are not meant for 'traveling'. Getting off-topic now

Alex

HI Alex,


Actually Orion will be flying to the ISS. Not really off topic.

Orion will most likely be too late for going to the ISS. ISS is currently not funded past 2016.

__________________
Signature? Why?

Was also merely saying that the training involved in assembling the ISS will be very useful for assembling any spacecraft that will be assembled in space for extended flights of which Const is a part of.

I was just about to say the same thing,Antice!

Alex

Projected Budgets change as well...but point noted.

I tought it was 2020 anyhow.

There is a recommendation from a certain commission for that. but nothing has been decided yet. however. extending the ISS and not extending the budget means no orion until 2020 as well.
even if they do drop ISS into the drink in 2016 they still are liable to not have Orion ready to go until 2019 or maybe even later.
The best bet for US manned launch before that is trough commercial launch services like what SpaceX is aiming for.

__________________
Signature? Why?

Large and Heavy....

It also takes a lot of shielding- ISS isn't designed to endure the radiation bombardment out in deep space- Earth's magnetic field helps shield ISS from a lot of the rays...I don't think it is entirely impossible though- What we needed to do is build off of what we learned from ISS and build follow-on modules BETTER. Make them shielded, make them larger, and start sending VASIMER propulsion modules up in space to stage them for bigger and better missions...

TY

Shielding usually means weight....artificial gravity hopefully...(and a big GYM.)

Nonono. No. The amount of mass you'd need to add to have artificial gravity (without rotation) would be enormous. Beyond enormous. Just look at the moon. So huge, yet still only a small amount of gravity.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The inevitability of a terminally ill person is not in question, and such people and their families have feelings.

The inevitability of Constellation's demise remains in question. But the program itself has no feelings, while it's "family" of folks who've worked so hard on it continue to have feelings.

So I can understand it being a downer. However, do you understand people's need to talk about it, given the program's uncertain future?

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell